I read quite a while ago that Metropolitan Valentin of the ROAC has been accused of sexual misconduct but it wasn't until today that I actually looked into his own side of the story. In order to find out, please visit this link:http://russianorthodox-roac.com/19.html

I hold no brief for ROAC but am aware that one method used again and again in Russia and the former Warsaw Pact countries was character assassination of 'class' or 'ideological' enemies. This sad case might well have been but one more example of this.

I've heard that the ROAC may be a cult-like spinter group of Orthodoxy but I haven't seen any proof of this.

VERY BRIEFLY AND HOPEFULLY WITHOUT POLEMICS; As probably one of the only people who have actually met any of the hierarchs or priests of the ROAC, outside of Anastasios and Philip (Mor Ephrem) I can tell you that yes we used to have a bishop that likes to have-cult like control of people. He, however was retired and then later excommunicated. He still has a group of about 20 people that do whatever he says and could be defined as a cult. He gave many people in North America a bad impression of the ROAC.

Now ROAC, it is mostly made up of Catacombniks in Russia that have come together with an administration and hierarchy granted to it by Russia. A number of factors like the Cyprianite union, Abp Mark of Germany wanting New York to control the Church in Russia (Whereas the bishops in Russia thought that what ROCOR, at that time called the Orthodox Church IN Russia, should naturally be governed by Russian bishops in Russia) and start talks with the MP ended up in a break in communion. Post communion, ROCOR claims to have defrocked the bishops, but since it was after the synod of the FROC/ROAC and ROCOR were in communion, this would not be canonically legal.

We do not have any bishops that are considered cult leaders and I know we have at least 300 parishes, but the ones that remain catacomb communities or not listed in our index nor are they registered with the government and this choice is both honored and allowed. Estimates have been put at 1,000 communities, but I cannot verify that number. The stories of our Catacomb Archbishops Serpahim and Anthony would bring you to tears how they were beaten and left for dead many times, but by the GRace of God the persevered and have guided their flocks for over 50 years.

Post communion, ROCOR claims to have defrocked the bishops, but since it was after the synod of the FROC/ROAC and ROCOR were in communion, this would not be canonically legal.

I'm not sure that I've ever understood this from either side's perspective. From your perspective, you returned to communion with ROCOR at Lesna in late 1994, which was after all this supposed hanky-panky that you mention with Cyprian and so forth, and then broke again in early 1995. From ROCOR's perspective, they reconciled two Russian bishops (and probably assumed that the rest of the ROCOR inside Russia would fall in line) in 1994, though their attempt at reconciliation fell apart. ROAC now claims that ROCOR took advantage of Met. Valentine being in a bad physical state and basically tried to force him to sign things he wouldn't ordinarily have signed. Yet on the other hand, when push comes to shove, ROAC admits that it did enter back into communion with ROCOR and tries to explain this away as merely giving ROCOR one last chance.

Where exactly do the canons say that it's ok to join in communion with a group in spite of perceived canonical (and other) lapses, and then 3 months later break communion over those same lapses? When I see members of ROAC quote canons and Saints and whatnot, it is always stuff like "Flee from schism! Flee as from fire!" or "If a bishop bareheadedly teaches heresy..." This is not to say that ROCOR's position seems any more consistent, as they seem willing to take anyone and everyone who says "I'll be good" (even if you can see their fingers crossed).